Are science & spirituality one and the same?

Mar 12 2013:
In my opinion it depends what you define as "the same". Because they are both similar in the way, they are both processes which look at the world, and try and base conclusions from it.
They just come at it from a different angle. (science = more rational, spirit = more spiritual purposeful way of looking at the universe).
But probably both contradict eachother on some things.
Might be misunderstanding the question. :) Please tell me if I have.

Science is the way we know things.
Spirituality is the way we feel about things.

By "know" I mean perception through physical means.
By "feel" I mean emotional perception.

We can have feelings about what we know that determine our attitude towards what we know - like, dislike, fear, dread, expect, enjoy. These feelings often cause us to ignore what we know (hopefully, not), or interpret it differently, and they drive practical conclusions from our knowledge - give us direction to act. Motives are not derived from mere knowledge.

Perfect within my understanding, they are one of the same. My question is how did just matter create comp-lex thinking on it's own & where did matter & anti-matter come from in the first place? Not out of thin air surely becaus that's illogical!!!!

Mar 16 2013:
Matter and anti-matter are two kinds of matter. Science does have evidence that particles and anti-particles can appear from vacuum (not from thin air). "Thin air" and "vacuum" are not "nothing". To have "quantum vacuum fluctuation" one needs, at least, space and time.

Circular reasoning, when conclusion is assumed in one of the premises or when consequence is necessary for the cause to exist, is invalid. There are no logical answers or rational explanations to these things. Such statements are inherently uncertain and lack meaning. Meaning and certainty come from "spirit" - our emotional perception of reality.

Examples of circular statements: "if God created everything that is, seen and unseen, then who created God?" "Can God almighty create a rock too heavy for him to lift?" "Is benevolent and almighty God willing and able to eliminate evil?" "Can omniscient and omnipotent God who knows what will happen change the future?" "The universe created itself from nothing" "There was time when there was no time", "just say NO to negativism", "protect the rights of unborn women!", "I pray God to save me from his followers", etc., etc.

I don't expect any meaningful conclusions from these "deep thoughts". Nonsense - that's all it is. Just make an emotional choice and stick to it. But don't say that your choice is "rational".

Mar 16 2013:
To explain the first circular statement, you should take a look at Principle of Causality. That principle states that there is always a first uncaused cause in a chain of effect and cause. It is impossible to have an infinite chain of cause because that is illogical.

How do you define space and time? Is space and time something spirit like or matter?

And yes about your "quantum vacuum fluctuation", if vacuum is something, it is possible to have matter and anti-matter come from it because something can come out from something. However, something cannot come out from nothing, this is a logical thinking. Then where did the first particle(or a dense mass) come from which created big bang??
Surely something cannot come from nothing!

Mar 16 2013:
@Christopher An
If I understand anything about physics, space and time cannot have any meaning without moving massive particles. Space is used to describe position of bodies relative to each other, and time is used to describe the movement. So, space and time could not have "existed" or been defined before matter. They are properties of material world - not "spiritual". To have "vacuum" we must have space. To have "fluctuation" we must have time. I can believe that particles can appear from quantum vacuum fluctuations. But quantum vacuum is not "nothing".

I can believe that matter appeared from "nothing" if somebody tells me what this "nothing" is. The problem is that once you give it a definition, it's "something", not "nothing". One cannot give a definition of "nothing". And without such definition the phrase "the universe came from nothing" is meaningless.

So, in my view, the universe did not come from "nothing", but rather "something certain" appeared from complete uncertainty. I find it consistent with quantum physics.

Mar 17 2013:
In my opinion, they are both expressions of our great human struggle to draft a narrative that answers one question: Is the universe friendly? Where some perceive separation due to specificity or ambiguity others prefer a view that includes continuity and connectivity of both pursuits.

Mar 16 2013:
Einstein spoke as powerfully and elqouently as anyone could to this in his famous lecture at the Princeton Theological seminary.

I hesitate to summarize it without again first reading it myself but I love what he said so much I think I can do it some justice "off the top of my head"

What he basically said is that they are two different vectors of humanity..two different expressions of humanity not meant to be reconciled and not necessarily reconcilable but both essential expressions of humanity. He characterized spiritulaity as that open yearning towards something beyond what we know and "possess"..sort of the universal wordless fire in the belly of humanity that keeps us asking questions and looking for answers and evolving towards something worhy. Spirituality he said is about our aspirations and dreams and inspirations.

I'm not a hoggly-boogly fairyland spiritually aware person myself that thinks that everything that science can't explain yet is somehow of the spiritual because to me everything is of the spiritual even a scientist discovering something new, now that’s magic without the hoogly-boogly stuff. Nothing is hoogly-boogly magical as it's all of natural process that in time will be explained properly through processes like science.

If we look at spiritual endeavors as those which brings meaning to one's life, as I tend to do, then I can't see how there is a one-to-one correspondence between science and spirituality. But neither do I think science falls outside of those activities or mind-sets which bring meaning.

I see science as a refinement of the reasoning process which helps us understand the world around us, to identify facts and to group those facts within theoretical frameworks which become models of our universe.

How can wondering about and exploring nature using our minds not be spiritual?

A spiritually aware person is in there element when exploring in wonderment as of a scientist, some of these scientists are really wacko in a sense they are out there somewhere because of their own wonderment of our environment through exploration so yes I would agree with your very good point Peter, it is indeed just as spiritual (exhilarating) for an open minded scientist than it is for a spiritually aware person.

Mar 16 2013:
Re: "How can wondering about and exploring nature using our minds not be spiritual?"

Grayling mentions that "meaning" is our attitude towards life. I agree. "Wondering" about life is spiritual. It's an emotional impulse. The motives for doing science are spiritual. Attitude towards science is spiritual. Attitude towards knowledge is spiritual. Science itself or knowledge itself are not. There is nothing spiritual in cold physical facts.

Physical experiences are different from emotional experiences. We cannot have a physical experience without having an emotional experience, and people often confuse the two. E.g. taking a cold shower is just a physical experience. On a hot summer day and on a cold winter day, physical experience from a cold shower is the same. But emotional experience (our reaction or attitude) is quite different. Emotional experience motivates us to seek or avoid the same physical experience.

So in saying this do you think that makes them the same keeping in mind that the conclusion is also the same. It's a sort of paradox they are but there not the same at the same time.

I look at it this way Leslie, they are tools to be used to help us understand ourselves better which is very similar to a hammer & spanner, can a spanner or a hammer on it’s own loosen a tight nut? No but if we use both of these tools together in unison we can loosen the nut by tapping on the spanner with the hammer which gives us a better result that using a hammer or spanner on it’s own.

Now look at spirituality & science as tools for which they are in the same context, yes I know they are still different tools but one could make A tool to do the same thing but other than that symbolically they are the same but only when used in unison which has happened when mysticism & philosophy where used in unison. The advent of modern day science killed off that unison but it is coming back to the fold with newer sciences like quantum physics but especially quantum mechanics as they look at the improbable as well & the reason I know this is my brother tried to study quantum mechanics but found it to be over he’s head.

I am I going to start a new thread to our conversation since it was getting pretty long. Nice response by the way:

As for science being egotistical and dogmatic, I would have to kindly disagree. Are there scientist that are egotistical and dogmatic? Perhaps. You mentioned science being taken on blind faith for the simple fact that science would propose one theory only to have it proven wrong by another one that is even more profound. The truth of the matter is, that is actually what is great about science. That is the purpose of science. Every scientist, philosopher or anyone who is a lover of knowledge, have to acknowledge the possibility of being incorrect. It is what makes us smarter individuals.

I personally believe it is the individuals who make claims about things they cannot be certain about that are the dogmatic and egotistical ones. Science essentially is trying to verify everything that is verifiable. That can be reproduced and shows consistency. If a scientist is wrong about a certain theory, then they are wrong and they'll find another alternative until they get it right. I find this fascinating and we do not give scientist enough credit for the hard work that they do. When it comes to the natural world, I think science is the best we got.

you are correct in that what may be true today may not be true in 100yrs. perhaps some time passed my lifetime humanity would have reconciled the issues that we are talking about now and everything that I say will be incorrect.

I believe Colleen mentioned this but since science is part of the whole, it does have a relationship with spirituality but if science fails to find answers of meaning, this does not mean that spirituality is not profound. It still is and it will always continue to be.

I didn’t actually mean science itself being dogmatic & egotistical however it is the egotistical dogmatic scientist that do indeed make it so. I was on a NOETIC site for a while sometime back & I had to leave because of the egotistical dogmatism but I’m back because I realised that was my problem in not handling the egoist dogmatism not theirs.

I look at science & spirituality as tools to be used differently to find the same answers, science is rediscovering ourselves where’s spirituality helps by giving science a better scope & bearing.

It’s good to converse with people who take science & spirituality in the same important context & knowing one isn’t better than the other.

Mar 12 2013:
On the level of existence they are both part of the same one life. To some, science and spirituality are diametricaly opposed because the theories of origin do not agree. I suggest that science is one of many expressions of the eternal and is an important part of the evolution of thought.

First up did science derive from philosophy & mystIcism? How now is science looking at our environement? It uses modern day sciences like quantum mechanic, have you read up on some of the calims made by some quantum physicists, they border on delusional or more likely the mystical because to start researching in these areas to beggin with they have to look way outside the logical sphere to start with.

I see your point but don't you think you just might be a little dogmaitc within your principles just like some religious people? "Dogmatism is plain ignorance of the things we don't understand yet".

Do you think a hundred years ago that scientists back then would have accepted quantum mechanics as a serious science? Of course not because of their dogmaitism & ignorance which is brought on by a lack of understanding.

Mar 12 2013:
When philosophical questions become verifiable, they enter into the realm of science. Spirituality concerns all those things that are not verifiable.

Science has no dogma or tenants. Instead, science has falsification. If your claim involving spirituality cannot be falsified, it is not scientific. There is no middle ground here.

Without the instruments to perform the experiments to verify quantum mechanics, scientists in the past would have been correct to disbelieve any quantum claim. Without evidence, there is no reason to believe.

“Without evidence, there is no reason to believe”. You wouldn’t call this statement of yours dogmatic? Dogmatic means inflexible, rigid, narrow minded, authoritarian & so on, I’m lucky because I believe in both science & spiritualism thank God.

I can understand your stand on this because it’s the typical mode of thought of an inflexible science minded person which is programed into the recipient through the educational system but that sort of mind wouldn’t work too well in certain fields of quantum mechanics as you very much need to be able to see way outside the square before anything can be seen to be proven. How did we find out that the world wasn’t flat before it was proven? It might have been calculated but it couldn’t be proven until someone had the guts & the capability to prove it before it was proven, in other words it took blind faith.

Look Christopher I’m also science minded but I’m also not ignorant of other possibilities until they can be proven wrong, you’re saying their wrong that’s it because they can’t be proven, that doesn’t make logical sense to me!!

Mar 11 2013:
I personally do not think they are the same but this does not mean they cannot be compatible. They are in essence asking two different questions, with different methods of seeking "truth" or "understanding". While I do not think there is anything more important than subjectivity, I do not think you should give precedence of one over the other. Perhaps they are similar to the yin-yang symbol (part of the same "whole" but inherently different in nature).

I think as long as you leave out God talk and metaphysics, both can co-exist just fine.

Mar 11 2013:
I tend to agree. If spirituality is about feeling connected to the universe and other people, without invoking supernatural magic then it is not at odds or outside of a scientific understanding.

You can go further and assume eternal souls and invisible agents but then you are outside of a scientific understanding, or reasonably skeptical critical thinking, and into the realm of speculation.

Mar 12 2013:
Orlando and Obey,
I perceive EVERYTHING as interconnected, so I agree with the idea that science and spirituality co-exist, are compatible, and I believe they can support each other IF that fits our personal beliefs.

My perception of spirituality is the feeling of interconnectedness with everything and everyone in our world, and I do not perceive this concept to be "outside of a scientific understanding". In fact, I think/feel it is very much connected to science.

I do not disagree with your points. I do not see homo-sapiens as being separate from anything else in the natural world (as well as the universe). I think everything that exist is all part of the same whole because we all have the same origins (call it the big-bang, call it God, or whatever suits you).

I do feel that science to a degree can contribute to area's of spirituality and perhaps help us understand its biological and mechanistic basis. How it has managed to evolve over time.

As I pointed out before, what makes spirituality so grand is the experiences that individuals have and it is here that I think science has no say. We can talk about mirror neurons, axons, neurotransmitters, bio-electricity and none of these things are ever going to be able to tell us about the subjective experiences that we are having. No matter how how much we perturb our nervous system, there is always going to be that gap between the subjective and objective unless we know exactly which neurons contribute to certain experiences.

this is what leads me to believe that they are inherently different but yes I think you are right that they are compatible.

I also believe that we are all part of the same whole natural universe, and in that respect, science and spirituality are also part of the same whole natural universe. I think/feel that the only thing that seperates one aspect from another part of the whole, is an individuals personal beliefs.

I agree with you that science can provide information, and we, as individuals, may use the information in different ways....or not at all, if that is our choice. We can perceive it in a way that supports other beliefs, or not. If a person is "stuck" with a certain belief (either science or sprituality) that does not seem to support the other, s/he may perceive them to be seperate. I think/feel it takes an open mind and heart to feel and understand the connectivity of the whole.

Also part of the whole of our understanding, as you mention, is what parts are objective and what parts are subjective. These can also be connected....UNLESS.....a personal belief causes him/her to seperate them. I agree that science cannot adequately define our subjective experiences. Science CAN, however, provide information regarding how or why we may experience what we do? Science is, for example starting to identify which parts of the brain control certain behaviors, so it provides us with more information regarding how we function. I find it fascinating!

Yes they are different in their deductive reasoning (methods) but they both seek the same thing, answers to our whole being. Both methods are viable in finding out what we are & why we exist & both give us a better understanding of our environment in different ways because of the different methods used. Are they the same because they seek the same thing or are they different because of the methods used?

Science breaks down every part of our environment & gives it all a label to seek the answers to the smaller questions as spirituality looks at the bigger questions, who are we & what are we doing here. I do believe science will answers these bigger questions as well once it finds newer science techniques to do so.

So are they the same? I suppose it depends on our individual interpretations if it is so or not.

I'm more open-mined to that possibility than you think. While I am a big advocate for scientific advancement, I just think there are some things that science would not be able to tell us. Of course this should not stop the scientific community from exploring and trying to understand the nature of spirituality and experience.

Big picture wise, yes, both are looking for the same answers but I do not think this really says anything. For one many mystics and spiritual individuals, while being introspective would make claims about something that is external to their subjectivity, claims that they would not have any idea of (especially when closing their eyes during meditation). I think there is much more for us to learn spiritually as well as scientifically. I think the reason why science get's involved is because of the claims that some spiritual leaders say about the nature of reality or because they are curious with the brain activity of someone who is having a spiritual experience.

I guess my concern is how new-age mysticism is being justified by invoking science. Like you I believe that science would be able to answer these questions of value along with philosophy.

Let me ask you this:

If people make claims about metaphysics or being one with God, how do you explore this scientifically? You cannot deny the fact that they had an experience, if indeed they did have such an experience. I think there are scientific reasons to doubt the actual existence of metaphysical afterwords and God but to state that the best experience in one's life is nothing more than an experience would be a hard sell to that individual.

There was an article about a Dr. who said he was in heaven. I doubt that he was actually in heaven and there is much science to show that his brain was still active which may have produced the experience. nonetheless the experience changed his life. Scientifically and philosophically what do can we say to him?

Yes I would agree with what you are saying here, there is tooo much blind faith in certain spiritual arenas for me & in my blog I do have ago at some of the new & old spiritual/religious concepts which are contradictory in my mind. For example in regards to karma, we are supposed to live out our lives correcting our karma from some past life which we will do in proceeding lives however it is written that after we die our life flashes before us showing us where we went wrong. My point is it’s the soul that is supposed to be learning from this not our physical bodies & just after death that is exactly what we have done so there is no need to repent on our sins in the next life.

I also find science quite dogmatic & egotistical which to me is blind faith. How many scientific proven theories & concepts have latter on been wrong in their evaluative deductions through improved science awareness & techniques?

In regards to being one with God or of proving there is a God in the first place through science when science today doesn’t have the capabilities to do so all I can do is refer you back a 100 yrs or so before quantum physics & mechanics was properly understood, they would have laughed at you back then in a lot of the theories & studies being performed today through these new sciences. Now we have had huge leaps in science in just the last hundred yrs what will the next hundred yrs give us?

I’m not into fairy tale spirituality but I do realise that everything vibrates including thought so if it vibrates it must exist but psychologically speaking what seems to exist to us is usually something different just like once the world was flat or the sun was a God, one must take in all the aspects not just the ones that make us feel good or sound correct & this is why science, psychology & spirituality go hand in hand.

Mar 11 2013:
Just like modern science is very different from Alchemy, modern spirituality is very different from bearded old man man in white robe flying in the sky. I have taken both 'science' and 'spirituality' in Mathew's question as the modern concepts of those terms.

I have the understanding that modern day science derived from mysticism & philosophy, mysticism provided the ability to look outside the square where’s philosophy provided a more in-depth analysis instead of relying totally on blind faith.

Modern day science today is once again looking at ancient practices but in a more modern way for example scientists have been looking at healing people by just using vibrative frequencies & how certain vibrations effect plants in there development. Mystics & spiritualists have always known about the effects of vibrations on living matter but of course they thought it was more to do with hoogly-boogly stuff which of course it wasn’t.

However if you take a look at Yoga or Tao for instance you can see the science within the belief, they knew about the science within this hoogly-boogly stuff but of course not quite to the extent that we are learning about now through different science techniques. When you read about the science within Yoga for instance it is so much in line with modern day science it’s not funny.

This sort of debate upsets both science & spiritually minded people for the main reason both camps have their dogmas to deal with, I am open to both science & spirituality which shows my unbiased opinion & non-dogmatic principles which allows me to look outside the square of any one minded set ideological principles, now that's logical to me!!!

Mar 10 2013:
Spirits/souls (us) are not a part of the universe so they cannot be measured but they do manifest themselves and this manifestation is called life. Math for instance could be said to be part of the knowledge that is ascertained by this interaction. In other words I also don't think the 2 are mutually exclusive.

Mar 10 2013:
Science came into being initially to try & understand how God accomplished things in the material world. It has recently redefined itself as materialist-only. If we try to understand a materialist problem that actually has a spiritual component we are doomed to failure. Better to go with the evidence, even if it points in a spiritual direction, than to invent a whopper just to keep everything within a materialistic framework.
Yes science & spirituality are closely related.

Utterly agree on this......modern day science had gone materialistic which is a huge shame but I suppose that is the sign of the times. I had this same discussion on consumerist materialistic science before in reference to hydraulic fracturing, it was quite controversial as you could imagine. Science needs spiritualism to get it back on track I believe.

Mar 10 2013:
That depends on how you define "spirituality". I see the two as going hand-in-hand, but those who define it differently will see them as being diametrically opposed to one another. Quantum mechanics is changing everything. I read an article yesterday about the grand movement in thought - based on experimental evidence - that has a little more than half of all Q physicists believing that my identity is not housed entirely in my body, and that the universe/multiverse (in all and each of its parts) is a/are living, sentient experience (rather than "a" being) within a system of probabilities. The trend is so great that those who have made the transition see the two merging. Spirituality asking the questions and science looking for evidence that either supports or discredits an idea.

So, in my opinion, they are not the same, but they are complimentary for as long as spirituality offers new ideas and asks new questions for scientists to research, and for as long as science introduces evidence for or against those ideas while suggesting new ideas.

We use to laugh at medicine men or witch doctors but now it is being understood that certain vibrations through chanting for intsance can effect living matter. I do think personally at this satge that they will find out in the future they are one of the same but that's just my beliefe which of course could be wrong.

Mar 12 2013:
I don't see how they could ever be one-in-the-same. One looks for evidence. The other will ultimately depend on the evidence that science finds to put a base (legitimacy) under itself. They are two different ways of thinking. They are complimentary but not similar, except that science is itself an idea, and as an idea, it is spiritual in nature because thoughts are things and ideas are thought constructs.

Science can rightly say that the God of Abraham (as today's cultures define Him) does not exist, and it can produce evidence to substantiate its claim, but science cannot say that no God exists or that Abraham's God did or did not create the universe. Such a claim would require conjecture rather than evidence. Science is firmly rooted in evidence.

New fields of science are finding ways to quantify that which the spiritually oriented person believes. It finds patterns and presents proofs of quantifiable answers. It's still science.

The only way for science and spirituality to merge is for science to produce as much evidence for its position as there is evidence for evolution. That science would have to clearly demonstrate that we are gods who create our own realities, thus we create the science that proves to us what we want to see. (And there is already science that suggests this idea that I first read in the 1980s)

But still, even in this context, science is about evidence and spirituality is not. One could say that one is a question and one is an answer. One could also suggest that there can be no answers without questions, so the two are entangled making them ultimately one multi-dimensional thought construct.

(If a tree falls in the woods and nothing heard it, did the tree exist?)

You seem to want to prove something first before it exists however I look at it this way if it’s not proven to be wrong then it has a 50/50 chance of it still existing. To me it makes no logical sense what so ever to disclaim something altogether because one is unable to prove it at that time, is the world still flat because once upon a time it was proven it was. How many scientific theories even from Einstein & Newton been debunked by improved science techniques & understanding?

Did you know that Newton was into Alchemy which seems quite mystical at times especially in relation to producing gold from lead, the main components are lead, gold & urine, now this sounds awfully fanciful to me but they say it’s quite obtainable.

With our limited conscious understanding even today what is evidence, is it what we claim to be evidence or is it something else? Example the world was flat but now it’s not so which evidence is correct for that time? We have simplified evidence but I’m afraid evidence isn’t that simple.

I have had experiences with ghosts, spirits, entities or whatever you want to call them but I didn’t have evidence of my encounters but they were real, Ok let’s say I was delusional my family also witnessed firsthand simular occurrences, my tow eldest brothers at the same time had draws open up in front of them. Let’s say my whole agnostic/atheist family is delusional what about the other thousands of people in the world? What about out of body experiences, they can explain, while in surgery, exactly what happened & none of this has any so called evidence to prove that is what happens but it still exists!!

Evidence is only as good as the methods to measure such things so if it can’t be measured it doesn’t exist, that to me is full blown blind faith because so called proven evidence has been debunked over & over again throughout human history.

I would like to thank everybody for their participation even the people I clashed with.
“To clash with others is not others at fault but my own for one must look inside to why one clashed in the first place not others”
This has been quite a mind opener & I am all more the aware for it thanks to your participation.

Mar 17 2013:
Somehow in this argument we have drifted into religion. The question proposed is in reference to spirituality, which sounds religious but isn't necessarily so. . Spirituality does not constitute or embrace a specific religion. Religion is about the hereafter and belief in the survival of the human soul.
There is a fine line between the two but spirituality has more to do with our humanistic qualities, the essence of who we are, ie., our character.
Love and concern for one another are spiritual qualities, but they are invisible virtues ,positive emotions, that science has yet to explain. Religion may be dedicated to encourage the growth of these qualities, but it is not an inherent part of them.

Yes but people who are against spiritualism period in any form like to always bring up the worse scenario which is very human to do so, I thought it was obvious what I meant but that’s OK as it all panned out in the end.

Mar 16 2013:
I'm newly introduced here and this is my first dip in. I find quite a lot of the comments interesting, & would like to comment on a few points. Religion is not synonymous with spitiuality. It may be, but observably the doctrines and practice of religion(s) are not necessarily at all. Neither is spirituality synonymous with feeling or emotion, which is only a part of spitiuality. Spirituality is, surely, about an awareness that goes well beyond self, connectiong us to all. and it is understood by the whole self, intellectually as much as that feeling of vast connection. It is evident through what we say, how we say, and action, even when that action includes 'non-action'. Being aware involves an intimate understanding and understanding comes from knowledge. Science also is intimately concerned with understanding, and by studying and researching comes to these detailed understanding and awareness. They hav found, for example, so many things that were previously though otherwise. Somebody said here that we should not confuse our physical experience with our emotional or 'spiritual' experience. [Much evil comes from this confusion....] Yet science, through the study of cell receptors and ligands, has found that the hormonal release triggered by emotional response always causes a physical reaction - one can not separate them. We can recognise this in cases of embarassment - thought, feeling and physical symptoms all affecting us simultaneously.
Somebody else also said that to talk about science and spirituality is actually useful. We could find arguments to say just about any 'this & that' is one and the same.
I am very interested in scientific developments and discoveries and learn a great deal, but I am also interested by much recent scientific research that, altho disproves previously held scientific ideologies, matches those I've learnt about through Buddhist teachings.

Now this is a good point, true spirituality is about awareness & so is science. I find the biggest problem we have in the west is we get an ideology & turn it into something else to suite our own ideologies which totally changes the intimal ideological belief to something quite different. You look at Yoga how that has been changed, one person here didn’t even realise the spiritual aspects of Yoga. You can’t practice Yoga or any other eastern ideology properly if you only understand what you want out of these ideologies & spiritual practices.

Our own spirituality in the west is churched based with certain doctrines to follow that can hinder our awareness but if one is happy within this system that’s a good thing as long as they don’t push their ideologies onto people who are more spiritually aware because they don’t have the same hindrances within their beliefs but in saying this the east also have certain religions that do exactly the same as western religions have & still do today.

So do you think they are one of the same Fiona? But of course this depends on which way one looks at them.

Mar 15 2013:
Sometimes science is fine tuned to serve political and racial conveniences.
Try to get hold of the old theories of scientific facts and you will find that scientists say the non eurpean races have no god, and if they do those gods are primitive. Gods like Ogun a African god.
Did Europe have pagen gods before christianity was introduced by the classical Greeks?

Mar 16 2013:
Mohan-sorry buddy but your wrong the greeks didn't have christianity the romans adopted it like they did all religions and christianity destroyed them plunging the world into the dark ages so what you can take from this is that christianity not only killed those people in the dark ages but also stopped scientific advancement from the romans if christianity never existed we would be 1000 years more advanced as for the gods of the european they believed in ancient idols and didn't have a "set" god

Mar 14 2013:
Singh~ Science is.... factoring of true and false, positive and negative with conclusion. It is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded by the events of tomorrow. In the natural world, fact can be tested. It can also be inferred or explained by incorporation of facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. That is the best way I know to describe a fact in the natural world of science. Is this not true fact?

Mar 15 2013:
It seems the True Fact is that has not changed and still can be " tested... also be inferred or explained by incorporation of facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Example Nature's elemental characteristics water, air have remained unchanged, cannot be "modified or even discarded by the events of tomorrow."

Mar 15 2013:
We new the big bang theory existed, we then had to prove it outside of theory, by all logical means it was true. It was then tested and found, in my consideration, as law (thus far discovered) to creation. Loved that project!. Don't think that the molecular structure of water and air were never debated, tested and then were written. For they were the very forefront to the laws of science, along with an apple. Oh, and water does change in its molecular structure, hence the term Ice, and does return as water, or vapor and then can be discarded into thin air only to begin again, as water. Interesting!

Mar 17 2013:
I can't agree to your statement that Nature's elemental characteristics (of) water,air have remained unchanged, cannot be modified ....". How do you characterize/define water or air? I believe that the components of air are still explored and explored by modern physics. New components are discovered. And the composition of it has been the hot topic related to the global warming argument. Indeed we are trying disparately to modify the composition of the atmospheric air nowaday.
Let me add a comment to the distinction between the spirituality and science. spirituality comes from human conciousness about the environment and about himself. And science is just a physical exploration driven by his curiousity. about his physical environment. And religion really has very little influence to the war, it is simply utilized to justify the human nature of selective competition among ourselves.

Mar 17 2013:
Have human despite technological advancements of Science , switched to anything other than air for natural breathing or drinking water for survival - what Likely continued for past nearly fifty thousand year of some recorded human history ? Changes in or discovering new air compositions or charging / bottling of water doesn't change these being the basic elements characteristics with 2/3 rd of human body as water. Any evidence from both science or spirituality that in past human breathe through what is not Air or drank what is not understood as water today. Science may have explored atomic / molecular/ compositional dimensions of Air, Water - have science or spirituality being able to produce something that will replace/ change needs of these two - it is from this essential prospective these have remained unchanged. thus shouold be distinguished as true facts rather than simple facts. Both Science and religion/ spirituality have these common grounds to start building up on - if air , one breathes doesn't produce a consciousness what will spirituality or science be worth of ? Or needed for

Mar 14 2013:
In my view you could certainly say they are. I have no "beliefs" in anything but the nature in which we live. Spirituality is always a subjective notion but it can be a valid concept inside nature with absolutely no conception of or connection to some kind of "super-nature". Perhaps a better way to voice it is to call it "extra-nature"--this acknowledges that we are part of nature but are not limited to the dictates of classic territorialism, survival or the fittest, dominance and submission, "winner take" et al which typify the struggles of animals in nature. Our extra-nature is the development of language to express concepts which allow us to suspend territorial impulses in favor of potential synergy with others, exercising choice to cooperate rather than conquer. The degree with which we embrace our extra-natural capacities and take them to heart as powers of good which cumulatively result in a higher civilization and more benevolent culture could be called spirituality. And want of truth no matter where it leads--science--is at the core of "extra-nature". No other animal questions the unseen, un-named forces that establish the constants of nature. We do. But science as spirituality fails as spirituality when it becomes ground for cruelty, dismissivness, competitiveness to a fault-for collaboration in means to kill if not wipe out nature as is true in nuclear and biological weaponry development.

Mar 14 2013:
@Christopher Halliwell : But you got the most essential view about spirituality which is everyone has a different definition. No, actually it's not definition. Everyone has his/her own spirituality. In time you will have yours.
If you insist, this is my spirituality in very brief. I see myself and every conscious being as a huge network of connections (some call this as a connectome) where my own conscious self is a node. This node that is Pabitra is ephemeral in biological time, it is active for now, influencing and getting influenced, creating and eliminating new connections. Then there will be a time when this node will stop sending and receiving signals but it's connections will continue to pulsate for some more time and then slowly die out. The network will continue however with new patterns and new connections. The network has no purpose, has no design has no direction in ultimate or final sense of meaning, it just exists by chance. All that we call reality, the physical and meta-physical, the entire being is the reflection of this network's emergent consciousness. They are existent only within this networked consciousness and meaningless outside of it.
The whole idea is subjective to my experience and as consistent as Scientific truths. It's just that it requires no proof. It helps me make sense of my existence when science is not applicable.

It's good stuff isn't it, in the last 100 yrs science has gone ahead in leaps & bounds can you imagine what it will do in the next hundred years especially when we get away from this consumerist materialistic mentality which is holding us back for the sake of the world economy through the continues use of fossil fuels.

The main consensus does seem to say they are the same in some areas & not in others which is quite plausible to assume such views. It does seem to depend in how spiritualty cohabitates with science like strict religious doctrines aren’t going to give science anything where’s new age spirituality would. It obviously depends on the openness with both science & spirituality if they are going to be or seem the same, I have very open minded spiritual view which helps me with the scientific side of life but of course there are many spiritually aware people who think science is unnecessary & unwarranted if so why are we here in the first place finding our way through the use of science in this reality?

I do think when they work in unison they do become one of the same also if one was to look at consciousness being everything then that also makes science & spirituality one of the same but only symbolically in human terms because human consciousness can’t valuate past what it consciously knows which is still very little if we take in the whole universe.

So we know very little of our entire universe because we still can’t even answer if there are other beings in the universe or not or what lies beneath the entire ocean floor but we can assume that our validated proven science claims are correct which seems quite audacious to me.

If we look at oneness as everything was created by this oneness in the first place that would make everything we know & don’t know of being the same as they came from the same energy source so what makes them different in realities like this one? It would seem that our perception/mode of thought that gives us variants when everything is one of the same, some spiritually aware people call this reality of variants an illusion as it’s not of what we truly are which I don’t agree with as everything to me is of the spiritual not just the mystical stuff.

Mar 14 2013:
It's like the Life of Pi, you choose the story of what you wish to believe is truth. None of us knows what is true. That is the quest! You can have one with out the other and still have the same conclusion. A Paradox! I'll stick to Professor's Brian Cox and Brian May to find the big picture. LOL

Paradox’s don’t worry me as I tend to accept it just is (isness) anyway, I don’t have a need to understand everything that I don’t understand if I don’t find it necessary.

Yes I agree you can have one without the other but that changes the outcome as it’s the tools we use that define the final outcome. Why do we have so many tools in this reality? If we used Yoga & Taoism the outcome will be different to using Christianity & wicka because it’s the mode of thought that defines how we see ourselves & our environment. If you are talking about our inner selves no matter what tools we use the inner self just is but what I’m talking about is our mode of thought in this reality.
You might find the bellow vid’s interesting; they are scientific but at the same time give grounding to spiritual concepts, they are animated but it’s worth a look see.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4my4wyUEagc

Mar 14 2013:
I think the lead question at the beginning was "Is science and spirituality one of the same?" which now stands revised as "Is science and spirituality one and the same?"
These questions are different. My answer to the revised question is 'No'.

Good point & I utterly agree as they are different tools but when used in unison they do tend to take on the same value & lead to the same outcome. I refer you to my reply to Leslie for more definition.

Love
Mathew

PS We are having trouble in seeing them as one of the same which is fair enough because they look & act like different tools but for some reason I'm not having the same problem in seeing them as one of the same when working in unison when woking a part yes but not in unison!!

Mar 13 2013:
One is self fulfilling, and the other is self refuting. Both end up with the same answer. Why does the path matter when there is an infinite/eternity amount of paths that can could would will and have already happened that all lead to the same answer

Mar 13 2013:
I think you should have made a stab at defining your terms, especially spirituality.

For me, being spiritual means being concerned about living a decent life, happiness, appreciating the mystery of our existence, looking up at the blazing night sky in the early quiet of the morning, engaging in something that brings joy or contentment. In other words many positive states which feed us fall under the term spiritual. What doesn't belong there is a lot of new age non-sense and the old-fashion notion of a spirit world. I also do not think there is that much overlap between spirituality and religion. What's odd to me is that many people would not consider someone like me, an atheist, to also have a spiritual dimension. I suppose that's due to the power of propaganda. I also appreciate science and think that exploring the mysteries of nature through science can be a spiritual endeavor. So, for me, science is not equal to spiritually, but can fall within its domain just as art can.

Mar 13 2013:
After reading your comment, I looked up "spirituality" and read that modern usage of that term separates it from religion, not in the sense that they cannot coexist for someone but that spirituality is a broader concept than the belief in a religion. While you may not include New Age ideas in your own ideas, it seems that in modern usage, New Age and ancient spirit-connected beliefs as well as Eastern philosophical approaches to your questions fit within spirituality.

There is nothing to prevent a scientist from considering herself spiritual. Scientists can be in love also. Scientists are not calculators and have a whole range of human traits!

Mar 13 2013:
Understand, I am not surprised modern usage would differ, and is why I would not label myself as spiritual without elaborating. I find the word to be too vague unless I know something about the person using it. Would be interesting to see the range of definitions if everyone here defined the term, especially those who label themselves such.

In a debate if I defined spirituality to one or two facets that would also have diminished the overall view of the discussion to one or two variables which I didn’t want as I wanted views on all angles to do with this discussion.

I don’t personally go with all this fairy land hoogly-boogly stuff but can I prove it exists or doesn’t exist so all I can do is personally go by my own personal judgment & likes & dislikes like you.

With me personally I look at myself as being spiritually aware & haven’t labelled myself a spiritualist as there is a huge difference between the two. To me spirituality is everything not just the hoogly-boogly stuff including physical life that so many spiritually aware people detest which I find strange because they are really also detesting a part of their spiritual selves by doing so.

Mar 13 2013:
On the personal level they are all the same thing- they are made of person's beliefs. The diffefence is in the content of those beliefs and their sources. The greates difference between the two is that science in general (on average) makes better, more precise predictions.

Yes I utterly agree on that. To me science is a tool for us to rediscover ourselves where’s spirituality gives these tools more scope & bearing so are they one of the same? Only time will tell through furthering our investigations into our entire environment, at the moment for me they are because both are tools to be used in a different manner to accomplish the something.

Yes you are right that not all Yoga practices are spiritually orientated but where did Yoga stem from in the first place, some Yogi’s will say you are not practicing in true Yogic form if you don’t understand a little of the principles of the spiritual of Yoga. Yoga is of the whole not of what you want to pick out as being Yoga which is typical of westerners.

Tell me what is so hoogly-boogly about the spiritual concepts of Yoga?

At present science & spirituality in certain arena’s seem to be the opposite, why? Dogmas on both sides of the fence. With science if it can’t be proven it doesn’t exist, this is a half glass empty attitude to me brought on by egotism & dogmas. To me if it can’t be proven wrong then it has a 50/50 chance of still existing, the scientific logic has no logic at all in this concept.

Certain forms of spirituality are outright blind faith which I’m also not interested in but if I can’t prove something about spiritually to be wrong I’m not going to arrogantly & ignorantly going to say it doesn’t exist period because there is still a 50/50 chance it can still exist if not proven wrong. Sorry but some science minded people just don’t make logical sense to me in their analysis in if it can’t be proven it can’t exist, now who is practicing in blind faith within their beliefs/concepts?

Mar 13 2013:
You may be misunderstanding my position. I'm not saying if you can not prove or disprove something then it does not exist. I'm suggesting not being able to disprove something is not a great reason to believe something.

RE: With science if it can’t be proven it doesn't exist

I'm not sure this is an accurate statement either. It is not my understanding.

If we can not prove or disprove something, then science has little to say until say we find a way to test something. Suggest it is just an open question, not a claim of non existence.

This is where critical thinking and healthy skepticism comes in where we consider the evidence relevant to the claim etc.

I guess there is a continuum of spiritual claims in terms of the how outlandish or speculative they are. But suggest not knowing for sure does not make it 50/50.

I'm not saying I know for sure that there are no heavens, hells, nirvarnas, paradise, valhalla, reincarnations, magic spirits etc.

I'm not saying if it can not be proven it does not exist.

What I am saying is you can not show sufficient evidence for extraordinary claims then I'm inclined to withhold judgement, not believe.

I am saying logically contradictory claims can not all be correct. So 99.999% of conflicting spiritual claims must be wrong to some extent.

I will add just about where ever we figure something out like the earthquakes, floods, disease, lightening,drought we find natural explanations better supported than angry gods and goddesses. So perhaps err conservatively.

I agree claiming to know something does not exist because there is no proof is illogical. However, believing it does exist with poor evidence is questionable.

There could be a billion invisible unicorn spirits sitting on my sofa, or holding atoms together. Who knows? Maybe I had a dream about them and that convinced me they are real. Dreams and personal revelations count as evidence right?

My views are not as extreme as you suggest, and less easy to dismiss I suggest

So what you are saying is if it can’t be proven wrong or right the probability of existence isn’t at 50%? So if there is no evidence you’re not going to believe someone who has witnessed let say a ghost for instance, at what percentage are you not going to believe them? 100%, 50% 25%. I will tell you now our whole family witnessed ghostly happening but of course we were all delirious but not only that thousands of other people in the world are also delirious/delusional as well. No I don’t have proof but I know what I witnessed firsthand.

How wrong in the past has facts been wrong further down the track but you will believe in facts unequivocally probably at a 100% because you can’t dispute facts. Facts are only facts at the time evidence has proven a fact but down the track these so called proven facts can & have been proven wrong, take a look at Einstein & Newton for starters.

Can I ask where you got your figures of conflicting spiritual claims of 99.999% because as science evolves it is proving more & more of what spirituality have been saying for hundreds of years like with vibrations for instance so 99.999% seems a little vogue unless you have unequivocal proof in what you are saying here. Spiritual people working with vibrations have been one of the biggest conflicting claims for a very long time with scientists but now with some scientist who are putting serious study into these conflicting claims are proving that a witch doctor let’s say can heal a person with chanting & other vibrative frequencies & of course herbs which a lot of modern day medicine was developed from.

I’m sorry but your unequivocally proof of scientific claims is also flawed which means even when proven beyond a doubt you can’t possibly 100% believe in these claims logically either. I don’t personally believe anything at 100% & yes if I don’t witness it firsthand I will disbelieve it to the percentage of proof given as I would guess you do as well hopefully.

Mar 13 2013:
I might believe the person thought they saw something.
Some believe honestly they were abducted by aliens.
I had a friend who saw things in shadows that no one else could see.
I think you would need to look at each case by case.
I would not be surprised if a lot of this is just tricks of our mind but some may be something else that is difficult to explain and understand.
I am open on this, but weary of conclusions with little evidence.

The percentage is just indicative. But there have probably been more than 10,000 god concepts and associated dogmas and personal interpretations. At best only one view could be absolutely correct,

In fact every person with spiritual or religious beliefs may be slightly different from some and very different from others.

I have spoken with many who call themselves Christians, and there is a very wide range of beliefs.

I haven't seen any studies on vibration so I don't know much about that. But no surprise if there are some examples where traditional techniques have some health effects - so what?

It's not proof of spirits or magic. Antibiotics would be magical to people 2,000 years ago.

Again you seem to be assuming my position on some things, wrongly, or I didn't really understand your last paragraph.

To determine a probability of a claim being correct you need more data.
Just because the claim is either correct or false, two outcomes, does not mean the probability is 50/50. Its not a coin toss.

E.g thousands of contradictory god claims don't all have a 50/50 chance of being correct. I think you might just be mixing up probability of an outcome occurring with number of outcomes true/false (2).

Did I say science was 100% correct? It's a process. It will develop and improve. About half of the conclusions in medical journals are found to be incorrect later. Suggest trying to be objective is more effective. More evidence is better than none.

I just suggest a process like science is more reliable and has more explanatory powe

Mar 12 2013:
When philosophical questions become verifiable, they enter into the realm of science. Spirituality concerns all those things that are not verifiable.

Science has no dogma or tenants. Instead, science has falsification. If your claim involving spirituality cannot be falsified, it is not scientific. There is no middle ground here.

Without the instruments to perform the experiments to verify quantum mechanics, scientists in the past would have been correct to disbelieve any quantum claim. Without evidence, there is no reason to believe.

“Without evidence, there is no reason to believe”. You wouldn’t call this statement of yours dogmatic? Dogmatic means inflexible, rigid, narrow minded, authoritarian & so on, I’m lucky because I believe in both science & spiritualism thank God.

I can understand your stand on this because it’s the typical mode of thought of an inflexible science minded person which is programed into the recipient through the educational system but that sort of mind wouldn’t work too well in certain fields of quantum mechanics as you very much need to be able to see way outside the square before anything can be seen to be proven. How did we find out that the world wasn’t flat before it was proven? It might have been calculated but it couldn’t be proven until someone had the guts & the capability to prove it before it was proven, in other words it took blind faith.

Look Christopher I’m also science minded but I’m also not ignorant of other possibilities until they can be proven wrong, you’re saying their wrong that’s it because they can’t be proven, that doesn’t make logical sense to me!!

Mar 12 2013:
Your prejudice of science is painfully apparent. There is no dogma or tenants in science. Instead, we have falsification. If your notion of spirituality is not falsifiable, it is not scientific. The end.

There is nothing authoritarian about science. If you have evidence for your claim, you are just as credible as a person with a PhD in physics. The source does not matter. Only the facts.

Science has no use for faith. You are lying if you say otherwise. I'm not discounting any possibility, I am merely unconvinced until evidence is presented. I have the most logical position.

Mar 12 2013:
Christopher,
Your profile says you are an educator/teacher. Perhaps it might be helpful to realize that you could be a student as well:>)

Telling a person s/he is "lying" when s/he is expressing his/her perception, is not a very good way to further a conversation....do you think?

Good point..."I am merely unconvinced until evidence is presented".

With that in mind, could you please produce your evidence which supports your statement "Science has no use for faith"? I'm sure in YOUR mind you have the most logical position. If you opened that mind of yours, you may discover other positions?

Calling someone you don’t know a liar without proof or evidence sounds a little tooo strong in it’s response & shows a little blind faith within your judgment don’t you think. This is a typical response from people who are dogmatic as I also get this sort of reaction from dogmatic religious people as well, I find that quite interesting.

I’m one sided am I, I had a blog called the Science of Spirituality & it was mostly on vibrations & the first post mentioned Einstein in relation to physics but I now have a blog on spiritual acceptance because I’ve evolved pass the ignorance of science.

Obviously you didn’t look at the links I supplied in regards to science dogmas!!! Scientist themselves have mentioned that science can be dogmatic. Sorry if I hurt your ego, this is why I left science for spirituality it’s far less dogmatic but my new blog does still have a fair bit of science content as well as they do complement each other if one is open minded enough.

If you take a look at my new blog you will also find out that I have a shot at new & old spiritual concepts so saying I’m prejudice without evidence seems a little contradictory especially from a science minded person.

Mar 12 2013:
Christopher,
I received your personal e-mail, which I copied here. There is a way to keep replies in sequence....it takes a little creativity:>)

In a personal e-mail to Colleen Steen, Christopher Halliwell wrote:
"Subject: In response to your comment

Your comment did not have a link to reply, so this will have to do:

* A teacher is a student. I hope to learn from every conversation I have.

* Science is the study of the natural world. If a scientist tried to use "faith" to prove his theories, he would be laughed out of the lecture hall. And for good reason. Faith is not a good thing. It is the excuse people give when they do not have a good reason to believe something. Your entire question makes no sense:
Science requires evidence, and faith is lack of evidence. I can't make this any simpler for you.

* Every conversation I have, I am learning about "other positions". As soon as the people that hold those positions provide evidence, I will have a reason to believe. I hope you understand the burden of proof as well."

I do indeed understand the "burden of proof" Christopher, and what you provide is simply your perception....not evidence or proof for your comments. Do you understand "burden of proof" and how it might work for ALL people?

Mar 12 2013:
Christopher,
I don't know why you are having difficulty with the reply system. Do you see the word "reply" in red, in the upper right corner of comments? If a comment is already at the 3rd level (3 small arrows in the upper left corner) you simply go to the next opportunity to reply.

Your latest personal e-mail to me:
"Christopher Halliwell sent you the following message through TED.com. You can REPLY DIRECTLY to this message, without revealing your email address.
Very best,
The TED Team

I still don't know how to respond to your comment in the original thread, so I hope you don't mind If I keep responding in this fashion.

* I don't need evidence because I am not making a claim. Those who make claims have the burden of proof. Since you understand that I am merely unconvinced of any deity, you should understand that the burden of proof does not apply to me in this situation. If I claimed I could fly like superman, then you would have a point."

Christopher, honestly, I do not understand what you are arguing about. I don't believe in a deity either. How about reading all relevant comments in a discussion before arguing?